Investigative interviews with online sexual offenders: A discursive analysis of verbal cues of deception

The objective of this study is to investigate how individuals convicted of online sexual crimes use language to deceive police investigators during investigative interviews. Discursive and interactional cues that may indicate deception were identified based on the suspects’ responses to questions asked by the police investigator, that is, whether the questions had a high or low potential to elicit deceit. To refine the selection of deceptive answers to be analyzed, the information that was contradicted or questioned during the interview was then targeted for each suspect. The results show that seven elements – grammatical negations, argumentative markers, uncertainty markers, use of the conditional, ignorance markers, sincerity markers, and volubility – distinguish between truthful and deceptive responses. Findings suggest that these elements are used as strategies to convince the investigator of the truthfulness of the (deceptive) statements being made and to avoid providing information that could be refuted during the interview.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Discourse Studies
Published
2025-03-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456251324546
Primary Topic
Deception detection and forensic psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Investigative interviews with online sexual offenders: A discursive analysis of verbal cues of deception

Nadine Deslauriers‐Varin, Sarah Paquette, Francis Fortin, Noémie Allard-Gaudreau
Discourse Studies
Deception detection and forensic psychology
article

Investigative interviews with online sexual offenders: A discursive analysis of verbal cues of deception

Nadine Deslauriers‐Varin, Sarah Paquette, Francis Fortin, Noémie Allard-Gaudreau
article en

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate how individuals convicted of online sexual crimes use language to deceive police investigators during investigative interviews. Discursive and interactional cues that may indicate deception were identified based on the suspects’ responses to questions asked by the police investigator, that is, whether the questions had a high or low potential to elicit deceit. To refine the selection of deceptive answers to be analyzed, the information that was contradicted or questioned during the interview was then targeted for each suspect. The results show that seven elements – grammatical negations, argumentative markers, uncertainty markers, use of the conditional, ignorance markers, sincerity markers, and volubility – distinguish between truthful and deceptive responses. Findings suggest that these elements are used as strategies to convince the investigator of the truthfulness of the (deceptive) statements being made and to avoid providing information that could be refuted during the interview.

Discourse Studies
International Centre for Comparative Criminology (CA), Université Laval (CA), University of Portsmouth (GB), Université de Montréal (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
Deception detection and forensic psychology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Investigative interviews with online sexual offenders: A discursive analysis of verbal cues of deception — Nadine Deslauriers‐Varin, Sarah Paquette, et al. · Discourse Studies (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS